The BSC Belongs to Us

Yes, we are (substantially) a cooperative

For at least eighty years, the BSC has conducted business "on a cooperative basis substantially as set forth in this part". The further away we move from the Rochdale Principles, the less likely we would be to win a claim brought by members under this law.

What About "Members Vote"?

Response to VP of Capital & Finance's Statement

A Board that has no commitments to cooperative democracy beyond the bare minimum legal requirements, cannot be expected to withstand continued temptation to choose professionalization over cooperation.There is a much easier way to act in the membrship's interests: Let us vote.

The 3 Dealbreakers still in the Bylaw Proposal

The final version still 1. Transforms unit-level elections into mere nominations, 2. Gives away stakes to moneyed outside interests 3. Irreversibly erodes any checks and balances on the process. If Board really must pass something tonight, Board should give the extra seats back to the members.

Proposal Texts

The Current Proposal [updated 5/8]

What Board is considering right now would do three things: 1. Eliminate all BSC Alumni Association Board positions, 2. Create two external Director positions to be granted to people with no affiliation with the BSC, and 3. Empower Board to veto house-level elections of Board Directors

Whose Stakes?

Issue #1: "External Stakeholders"

A cooperative by definition is owned and democratically run by its members. There is really no such thing as an "external stakeholder". Opening up the Board of Directors to corporate executives and politicians with no connection to the BSC, is a massive conflict of interest.

Proposal Texts

Alternative #1: Keeping External Directors Cooperative

may recommend... non-student directors who (a) are former members of the BSC or of a NASCO member cooperative, and (b) are currently members in good standing of another Co-operative Association as defined by California law.

Proposal Texts

Alternative #2: More Proportional

If we are reallocating Board positions, Board clearly has a mandate to prioritize proportional representation of members above uncooperative representation of non-members. This is a chance to make good on the so-far empty promises members accepted in exchange for our voting rights in 2015.

Context

How the Berkeley Coops Lost Proportional Voting

IACom: "a stopgap measure knowing the next IACom will come up with structures to maintain democratic member controls." Board: "being asked to give up basic democratic rights with the promise that this isn't the end-game. [But] power doesn’t give itself away easily." It's 2019. We're still waiting.

Proposal Texts

All Substantive Changes

Without these, the proposal affects member voting rights and therefore requires a vote of membership. Passing this anyway, would open the BSC up to liability under multiple laws. Moreover, it would be egregiously uncooperative.

What About "Members Vote"?

Issue #2: Changes to Member Voting Rights

This provision would effectively give the incumbent Board the ability to veto house-level elections of Board Directors, unless a reform caucus is able to win an outright majority of Board seats in one fell swoop. And if that does happen, the new majority can easily purge the incumbent minority.

Whose Stakes?

Issue #4: Accountability for External Directors

Once an external person becomes a Board Director, they have equal power to every other Board Director. They'll be able to vote on committees, vote and run for Cabinet positions, and nominate the next external Board Directors. They'll be able to vote to remove student Directors from our own Board.

Context

Issue #3: Role of BSC Alumni Association

Anyone who's lived in the BSC knows how hard it is to explain the experience to people on the outside. BSCAA members not only lived in the BSC, but continue to be active members of another cooperative. The 6th Rochdale Principle is why the BSCAA has a spot on Board: Cooperation among Cooperatives.

What About "Members Vote"?

This Should Require a Referendum

We have a bylaw intended to stop Board from changing the composition of Board or member voting rights without a member referendum. At least that's what the Executive Director told us in 2015.